The 2012 Republican Primary Field: February 16, 2012

Five Again
This week’s elephant stampede brings us a new feature: the advent of the NotNotRomney.
In the beginning, there was former Massachusetts Governor Willard “Mitt” Romney. Although he seemed to be the heir apparent to the Elephant King, there was tremendous dissatisfaction among Republican primary voters.
So the NotRomney was born. Throughout the fall of 2011 and early 2012, a succession of NotRomneys appeared. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Stillwater, MN), Texas Governor Rick Perry, Herman Cain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, then former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) all wore the NotRomney crown. Like the last guy in a game of musical chairs, Santorum seems to have a lock on the NotRomney title.
Still dissatisfied, Republican voters (as reflected on Intrade) have shunned Romney and NotRomney. Now, the surge of the NotNotRomney. This week’s inaugural NotNotRomney is — drum roll — Bush the Third.
Wait…what?
Former Florida Governor John Ellis “Jeb” Bush makes his first appearance in our weekly rundown of the Republican field. Remember that we’re using the Intrade bettors figuring a candidate has a one percent chance of the Republican nomination as our threshold. Jeb Bush is rising fast, and as of this writing is at two percent. As Bush is not a declared candidate, I assume this means Intraders think there’s at least a one in 50 chance of a brokered convention.
I’ve listed the potential Republican candidates below, in order of their Intrade percentages, from highest to lowest. In each case, the polling numbers are given in parentheses after the candidate’s name, rounded to the nearest whole number, followed by the change from last month:
RCP = the most recent (February 8–14) available Real Clear Politics national aggregated polling data.
In = Intrade February 15.
Arizona and Michigan hold primaries on February 28. I’ve also included polling data from those states:
ARG-AZ = American Research Group poll of Arizona voters, released February 15.
MRG-MI = MRG poll of Michigan voters, also released February 15.
In the interest of space and clarity, I’ve dropped the May-October monthly standings columns. The horserace standings now start in November, but you can go to the January 5 article to see the entire set going back to May, 2011.
| Candidate | Nov | Dec | Jan 5 | Jan 12 | Jan 19 | Jan 25 | Feb 2 | Feb 9 | Feb 16 |
| Romney | 1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| Santorum | none |
none |
3 (tie) |
4 (tie) |
none |
4 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
| Gingrich | 2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
| Paul | 4 (tie) |
3 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
| Bush, J | none |
none |
none |
none |
none |
none |
none |
none |
5 |
1.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (RCP 28% –7; In 75% –7; ARG-AZ 38%; MRG-MI 33%)
Mitt Romney was born in Michigan; his father, former American Motors President George Romney, was Governor of the state and a candidate for the 1968 Republican Presidential nomination. Now Santorum is ten points ahead of him in Michigan, and has surged 21 points (from ten percent to 31 percent) in the latest Arizona polls. Could Santorum win either of these, or perhaps take the night as he did in last week’s three non-binding caucuses and primaries? He lost seven percent in the estimation of Intrade bettors last week, and he dropped another seven percent this week. Even more troubling if you’re a Romney supporter is his seven-percent drop in the RCP national polling average, just in one week’s time.
In Romney’s case, then, there’s a conflict between Intrade’s groupthink and the current polling numbers. No doubt, it’s because we’ve seen something that looks remarkably similar. More than once. It seems as if every Republican in the nation has had a moment of polling higher than Romney, and yet the Mitt from Mass soomehow ended up on top every time. Intrade traders must feel NotMitt is the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
2.
Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) (RCP 34% +16; In 16% +6; ARG-AZ 31%; MRG-MI 43%)
Santorum is surging. His advantage as the race’s preeminent NotRomney is apparently carrying him forward, and he almost doubled his RCP polling average in just the last week. He was clearly helped by his trifecta in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota. Or, those state’s results reflected his surge — it’s not clear which way the causal arrow points.
Regardless, he’s certainly the NotMitt of February. Nobody has yet been able to hold the NotMitt Mantle for more than a month. Could Santorum finally break the trend? We’re a mere two weeks away from an answer.
3.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (RCP 15% –8; In 4% +1; ARG-AZ 15%; MRG-MI 11%)
Gingrich continues to struggle in real-world polling. He dropped by a third in RCP polling averages, and he’s barely registering above Ron Paul in Arizona and Michigan polls. The only bright spots are a continuing lead in Georgia polls, and a slight uptick in his Intrade numbers…but when you’re at three percent, four percent is an improvement.
4.
Representative Ron Paul (R-Lake Jackson, TX) (RCP 12% –3; In 3% 0; ARG-AZ 11%; MRG-MI 8%)
One thing you can say for Ron Paul: he’s consistent. He has a consistent, unyielding Libertarian message, and he consistently gets about ten percent in real-world polling and runs about two to three percent on Intrade. He saw a spike on Saturday when it looked like he was going to “win” the Maine caucuses. Then he didn’t, and dropped back to his Old Faithful three percent on Intrade.
5.
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (RCP no data; In 2% +2%; no poll data)
This week’s big surprise is Jeb Bush. Who better to inaugurate the NotNotRomney throne than a potential Third Bush? It appears that Intraders think there’s at least a two percent chance that the Republican convention will be brokered. Palin was quoted at this week’s Conservative Political Action Committee meeting as saying:
I don’t think that it would be a negative for the party, a brokered convention. That’s part of the competition, that’s part of the process. And it may happen.
Which goes to show how little she knows about modern politics…or else she’s a very skilled liar. You decide.
Related articles
- You: Mitt Romney can’t count on home-state advantage in Michigan (latimes.com)
- Why Romney Can’t Seal the Deal (thedailybeast.com)
- Election Notes: What Mitt’s Victory Means (bigthink.com)
- Election Notes: Santorum Wins (bigthink.com)
- Mitt Romney’s Thirst (campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com)

This entry was posted by Monotreme on February 16, 2012 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Republican 2012 Presidential Nomination. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
#2 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
This one is getting interesting. Though nothing is there yet that changes my opinion the Romney will eventually win the nomination, Santorum’s rise brings an interesting new aspect.
The battle between right and left.
A Romney nomination will not answer that. Since he is perceived, by most in both parties, to be situational in his ideology, a moderate in liberal or conservative clothing depending on the office and the audience.
But what if Santorum WAS to win?
This November would be THE TEST. The test that could answer the question of whether or not this country, as a whole leans right or left! How many times do we hear folks say “America is a conservative country”, “America is a center-right country”, “America is a moderate-progressive country”?
A Santorum candidacy could allow that question to be answered, truly without much equivocation, for the first time since 1964.
Few people doubt him to be a true conservative. He has been steady in his core principles his entire political career. He will provide the differentiation between himself and the President as Romney never will!
And on November 7th, one side or the other could say, with a great degree of truth, “I told you so!”. -
@Max… A Santorum candidacy could allow that question to be answered, truly without much equivocation, for the first time since 1964. Few people doubt him to be a true conservative.
I don’t entirely agree, Max. Yes, it’s true that a crushing Santorum defeat would reinforce the view of most sane people that far-right policies are no longer relevant to most of America. But the true believers on the right would read it as a confirmation of their belief that what they need to do is nominate pure conservatives because that’s what America really wants.
The Freepers grumble all the time that Santorum is NOT a real conservative. Conservatism of the Tea Party type is a 3-legged stool. There’s the social conservatism leg, the small-government/cut-spending leg, and the fear and loathing of minorities. Freepers find Santorum okay on social issues but they see him as a big spending– big government guy and they are afraid he’s squishy on immigration. So apart from his appeal as a Not Romney, there is little support for him among the staunchest conservatives.
At this point the Freepers have begun to actively hope for a brokered convention… something they viewed as a disaster just a couple of months ago. -
A funny thing happened on mittens way to the coronation …
ok, several funny things
happened! Bachmann, Trump, Perry, Cain, Newt, Santo.As Obama sits back and watches the soft parade of conservative irrelevancy and continues to look more and more presidential!
-
Isn’t it fun, shiloh? And we have months and months of this entertainment ahead of us.

I already had a chuckle with my morning coffee, reading the Freepers’ indignation and sour outrage over this story.
Apparently over at Daily Kos, Markos is aping Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Hilary” with a launch of “Operation Hilarity,” encouraging Dems to turn out at GOP primaries and vote for Santorum to “keep the clown show going.“
Freepers thought Rush was a genius when he did this. Now that the same tactic is used against them… not so much, I guess.
-
#7 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
fili,
So apart from his appeal as a Not Romney, there is little support for him among the staunchest conservatives.
Ehhh. If you look at the exit polling of “strong conservatives”, they have been voting en masse for Santorum. See Sabato’s Crystal Ball this week.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball“Of nine contests in this year’s Republican primary so far, only the first five — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and Nevada — have exit polling. In all of those states Santorum did better among self-described “very conservative” and “evangelical/born-again Christians” than he did overall”
-
#8 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
“Apparently over at Daily Kos, Markos is aping Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Hilary” with a launch of “Operation Hilarity,” encouraging Dems to turn out at GOP primaries and vote for Santorum to “keep the clown show going.““
Funny and ironic given that Markos Moulitsas is probably the biggest clown The Left has to offer. Actually, he’s just a dangerous ideologue who thrives by stirring up resentment among hordes of brainwashed, uncivilized fools. -
@max… Ehhh. If you look at the exit polling of “strong conservatives”, they have been voting en masse for Santorum.
Well, yes… but only because the alternative is Mitt, whom they utterly despise. I’m not saying they won’t vote for Santorum. I’m saying that when he loses, they will say it was because he was not conservative enough.
Ed Morrissey has an article out this morning predicting that Mitt is going to attack Santorum in Michigan on the areas where he is weakest among the far right… that he is a “big spender” and an “unreliable conservative.” -
#11 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
-
#12 written by curious jane 1 year ago
I agree, there is farce on both sides. Right now, the “popcorn” moments and satire of the Republican race to candidacy is doing it better than anything I’ve seen. Thank you for, again, pointing out the entertainment factor. It is easy to get stuck on the seriousness of the hard right movement and the irony of such regressive thinking.
-
-
@Michael…I don’t know how that makes it funny or ironic. Seems pretty much expected to me.
I agree with Muley here. I think it’s both funny and ironic that the very same people revered by one side as thought leaders are disdained by the other side as clowns and rabble rousers.
It exposes an ideological chasm so vast that it would be scary if we weren’t able (as Jane wisely advises) to see the humor within the irony.
It also makes me appreciate people like Muley (who, as everybody knows, has long been one of my favorites
) because he is somehow able to gallop along the knife edge separating the two camps, and give credit and blame to both sides where warranted. I wish there were more of him. -
#15 written by Mainer 1 year ago
Fili and some of the best stuff is the attacks that I guess should be labled intraparty. Firedog lakers attacking the president, Paulites attacking Santorumists, Santorumists and Paulites attacking Romneyilians. Newtsters just attacking, Perry People attacking.….…hmmmm any one not from Texas. Palinistas and Bachmann burgers attacking themselves. The really odd lot are those out there that are so far into the any body but Romney but nobody we have throes that they spend all of their time dissing any body that is actually running while visions of electoral sugar plums dance through their heads while they mumble about Christy, or Rubio or now Bush.
Mule man I suspect at some point the attacks from what is left of the left to get more pointed but at this point it would be like wasting your best snowballs on the mailman when you know the kids from the next block will be by any minute now.…nah better to keep making snow balls while one has the chance and just keep throwing the occasional misformd one at passersbys to keep your arm limbered up and the rest of the neighborhood milling about smartly.
I have been reading a bunch about Romney in Michigan. His camp seems to be getting a might frazzled. It will be interesting to see the spin should he get shelacked up there. Any figures that any of you have seen on ad buys up there? Romney Pac must be working over time with Santorum attack ads. The question is though has Romney already sealed the deal for Santorum? -
#16 written by WA7th 1 year ago
-
Mainer… I love it when you describe people as “milling about smartly.” It’s such an exquisitely apt depiction of the current state of the Republican party.
So, what’s going on over there anyhow? Did Ron Paul win your primary, or didn’t he? With that rocket scientist you’ve got as governor, one would think things would be run more efficiently.
-
#18 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
“I don’t know how that makes it funny or ironic.“
The humor/irony in it is that Markos has the audacity to refer to anyone conservative-leaning as a clown — with the implication that he’s sane, level-headed, and above the fray — when, in fact, he’s just as nutty and off-kilter but is different only that he’s left-leaning.
“Seems pretty much expected to me.“
Yes, but very few people who expect that kind of response from Markos also believe he’s a flaming hypocrite as he’s every bit as much or more of a clown than anyone on the right. -
#19 written by Mainer 1 year ago
Well Fili I guess that depends on who one asks. Let us take it from the top as I understand it:
Maine held or tried to hold a series of caucus events spread out over more than a week. It being winter and all and high school basket ball season scheduling can be at best tricky and one does not schedule any thing opposite a local high school basket bll game. But Maine being Maine groups of Republicans gathered at Grange Halls, schools, living rooms, fire stations, coffee shops and probably a couple of bars and resturants and they did the caucus thing. Every candidate was allowed to have one or more people speak for them and then those in attendance divvied up and were counted depending on whom they supported. Ok so far so good I guess. Apparently the Paul camp was the only one to have speakers at every scheduled event and they were loaded for bear and they were in most cases carefully chosen to not be the most wide eyed of the group, well prepped, neat and clean and the best the group had to offer.
Once conted those numbers were relayed to either local or party county chair persons and those individuals forwarded the results to the state party apparatus where apparently the wheels to the process either came off due to severe ineptitude or they were kicked off by an individual or individuals with a particular political axe to grind. Just to add spice at least one entire county never met because the national weather service predicted a pretty good snow storm so that county was under the belief that after contacting state party higher ups that they could push off their meetings for one week. Then the snow storm pretty much fizzled out but because the word had gone out to postpone nothing happened. Now please understand this particular county is where half my family comes from and they are dear dear people but they are to put it kindly a little of the beaten path. It is easier to shop in New Brunswick than in Bangor even with the new Passport rules. These are real Mainers unsullied by the influence of states to the south (Mass) and they make Kosti Rahoma’s famous picture depicting the independence of a hog on ice make sense.
So Saturday night Charlie Webster got on national TV and anounced that Mitt had won by 194 people even though some places had not yet even voted. Then the actual numbers from the various caucuses were released and all hell broke loose. What Charlie Webster now describes as minor clerical errors occured enmass (apparently) all of which seem to have favored Mitt over errors that hurt Paul and Santorum and even Newt. Then it came out that Washington county votes that would be tallied this Saturday would now not be counted because they will occur after the window set by the Republican party even though it appears they had party blessing to do so. But Washington county is a Paul stronghold but Webster is saying that based on past record that there will not be enough people there to change a 194 person difference. B U T it is becoming increasingly evident that the difference is not nor was not 194 as reported but maybe less than half of that (or as one friend has put it it is just as likely that Paul has already won with out Washington county but that would not fit Websters game plan or so it is rumored).
One county chair has put forth a censure request on Webster, other individual Republicans have demanded his resignation or sacking. Webster now refuses to realease any corrections or to divulge if Washington county results will be included until the state party meeting on March 10th. Paul supporters may seek an injunction forcing his hand, late today there are reports of death threats against Webster and others seen as being behind this fiasco and the State Police are investigating. Oh and Paul supporters are pulling out all the stops to pack more people than they have seen at a caucus in Washington County plus they are methodically retracing all the voting held thus far to see just how many clerical errors there are.
If I had to make a wild ass guess it would be the following. Webster will not be allowed to stonewall until March 10th. The party elders need to do some serious damage control and they need to do it now not in March. Webster could well follow his compatriots in Iowa and Nevada into early retirement or if he is stupid enough to go down Washington county way into an early casket. His staff will probably also get the sack, if not now by state convention time, and Paulites that have been positioning themselves ever since 2008 will dislodge the teaper crowd that wrote the most absurd state party platform in the country in 2010 thereby most likely causing the writing of the second strangest Republican Party platform in the states history this year.
So Fili sorry for the length but our staid Maine politics has kind of bubbled over like an over heated batch of bean hole beans and the rest of us are baking bisquits to sop up the drippings. Nothing like good political theater this time of year what with the frost heaves popping up like unknown relatives at the reading of a rich uncles will, the high school basket ball season winding down, mud season looming on the horizon and town meetings getting ready to start just as all the wanna beeeees are gearing up to run for office in November. If nothing else I’m not hearing much talk of cabin fever for once this time of year. Damn but town meeting could be good this year. Haggling, political arguing, speechifying, voting and good eats at the supper put on by the grand ladies of the fireman’s Auxillary. Ah late winter in Maine what I wouldn’t give for a fist full of blackflies.….think I’ll make a chowder for supper. But then I would just be sad that Nabisco stopped making Pilot crackers it is a sad time we live in. -
#20 written by GROG 1 year ago
fili,
Ed Morrissey has an article out this morning predicting that Mitt is going to attack Santorum in Michigan on the areas where he is weakest among the far right… that he is a “big spender” and an “unreliable conservative.”
I heard a radio ad today here in Ohio that said exactly that. I think these Republicans are making serious mistakes by attacking their own, and here’s why.
As a conservative, I like all the Republican canditates for the most part and I’m immediately turned off by someone attacking someone I like, even if I also like the attacker.
For example, I have 3 siblings. I have equal love and fondness for each, but if one of them criticizes the other, I immediately come to the defense of the attackee. That’s just me. I’m sure the campaign “experts” have data to show I’m an anomaly. -
Mule,
very few people who expect that kind of response from Markos also believe he’s a flaming hypocrite as he’s every bit as much or more of a clown than anyone on the right.
I guess that’s what it is. I mean, once upon a time he didn’t seem to be such a partisan hack, but that was a long time ago. I’ve often wondered if it’s the man or the feedback that makes the brand. I suppose it’s a combination of the two. It just feels (from the outside) as if the man becomes a sellout by compromising the brand in the interest of popularity. And then, here I sit, trying to build a brand…and it can be hard to tell where the line truly is. Our brand has evolved over time here. How much of that is because of the authors, and how much the readers? How does one tell?
-
fili, Mainer’s “milling about smartly” comes from his days in the military.
Now drop and give me “fifty”! ~ Push-ups forever begin!
I don’t know but it’s been said, Air Force wings are made of lead.
Left, right, left, right, left, right …
I don’t know but it’s been told, Navy wings are made of gold!
I digress.
Sailor, sailor, don’t be blue, our recruiter fucked us too!
-
Mainer… thanks for that excellent summary of the situation in Maine. Nothing is more entertaining than astute political analysis coupled with shrewd social observation… and recipes!
And speaking of “milling about smartly”… read the comments following this report on Santorum’s poll numbers over at The Corner. The NR reader community is a very smart bunch of conservatives, and they rarely differ much on ideology. Now, as you can see from the comments, they are totally fractured and at each other’s throats.
But unlike the Dems who were in that same situation back in the 2008 primary, they are also hopeless and dispirited. This is not a group that thinks it has any chance of winning a general election… and it’s obviously tearing them to pieces. -
and it’s obviously tearing them to pieces.
fili, I feel their pain!
I really do lol but my pain came after Kerry actually lost to cheney/bush and lasted a couple days, whereas these fools have (8+) mos. of misery to look forward to. As they are correct that either mittens/Santo has very little chance of beating incumbent Obama. Even if the economy stays in a rut, notwithstanding.But I had to sit thru (8) years of cheney/bush, so as always, it’s a tradeoff.
Again, the yin and yang of winners and losers. Plus the fact most, if not all, diehard Reps feel in their heart
they should never/ever lose a presidential election, regardless … -
#25 written by curious jane 1 year ago
If I don’t listen to what the prospective presidential candidates are saying and just view the comedy of errors. The fact that they are still talking about an unknown new candidate hopeful, on the horizon, shows that there is a definite problem. Even some talk , still, of Sarah. Shows some people are really in a tizzy and it takes my mind off of the dreadful things happening with women’s rights. The committee discussing the whole vaginal probe thing being all men, had me feeling pretty snarky today. There is humor or irony to focus on instead.
-
Jane… no kidding!
And did you catch Rick Santorum’s chief fundraiser today, commenting that if “the gals” woudl just “hold an aspirin between their knees” then birth control would be no problem?
The mind boggles… especially from the POV of political strategy. It’s like all these guys are on James Carville’s payroll. What astounding idiocy. -
#27 written by mostlyilurk 1 year ago
You know, curious jane, I have to agree with you. If I were to seriously consider the things that have been said and done lately, it makes me terribly sad and actually a bit fearful. It’s far better to focus on the humor, I suppose. Speaking of which, did you hear about the birth control method suggested by the guy who’s funding Santorum’s Superpac. He apparently suggested that placing an aspirin between a woman’s knees would be an inexpensive and effective way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
-
-
#30 written by curious jane 1 year ago
mostlyl.,
The whole asprin thing made me lol. I haven’t heard that one since my small-town-maiden-aunt, wisely, advising myself and cousin that it was the best method to stay chaste. That happened in the 40’s.
It is ironic that very little is mentioned about men’s responsibility by these “MCP,s” (a term I am bringing back). I wouldn’t mind doing replays of some of the joys of youth. Women’s rights is not one I chose to revisit. It was tough out there, especially in the work place and prospects of careers for women.
I earlier state that the humor is the only saving grace. Men are wiser and there is that old saying about a woman scorned.
-
#33 written by curious jane 1 year ago
That’s what I meant. It’s a term that I really haven’t thought of since the 60s. It was a term used by, what then were called radical females. It’s ironic that women just got a law for equal pay for equal work, in 2009. It was the first bill President Obama passed. It isn’t really being enforced by anyone without a lawsuit. Talk about fighting for equal rights and liberty. To force this issue of abortion (which is not even close to a convenient decision in a majority of cases)is so regressive, how would men feel if laws were made to castrate men planting babies all over the place without taking responsibility. Forcred probes, delays, couseling, forcing doctors to read script.
Now I am not seeing the humor. I think I will take a nap and calm down. Sorry. -
Just a random thought, since we’re talking about Republican presidential candidates.
Republicans should write off Michigan. It’s a swing state, but it’s gone for them.
With Republicans scapegoating unions, and hate hate hating the rescue of the auto industry, they may as well admit they are intentionally pissing off all of Michigan.
GM had record profits last year. The biggest profits in their history. Thanks to President Obama rescuing the company, the industry, and the union. Republicans wanted GM to go bankrupt, the industry to fend for itself, and the unions to die. GM is hiring again. Big time. So there.
Republicans should simply write off Michigan.
-
Yeah, that’s a really old joke. He needs to get some new material.
How about this one. My wife suggested it:
“Birth control is easy. Guys, keep it in your pants.”
The Right would get their message of abstinence across without pissing off women. Why do they never go for that one, hmmm? Rhetorical question.
-
Republicans should simply write off Michigan.
The auto industry is also still fairly significant in Ohio. Along w/kasich getting his ass kicked on the anti-union Issue 2 referendum recently. Add to that the utter futility of mittens/Santo = Reps should write off Ohio as well.
Re: the current Rep party ~ apologies to dinosaurs!
Obama has pick-up opportunities in MT and AZ and if this turns into another year of the woman, Dems have 4 female senate candidates (2) running against Rep senate incumbents: WI, MA, HI, NV. And a very strong female bench.
Indeed, as HI may have (2) female Dem senators by 2016 replacing 2 Dem dinosaurs.
As clueless Republicans continue to piss off female voters, as well as Latinos and Asians, etc. in search of turdblossom’s laughable pipe dream of a permanent Rep majority.
>
When the opposition is self-destructing, get the hell out of the way!
-
-
shiloh,
Obama has pick-up opportunities in MT and AZ
Arizona maybe. Not Montana. Or were you talking the Senate?
Dems have 4 female senate candidates (2) running against Rep senate incumbents: WI, MA, HI, NV.
Massachusetts is the most likely flip to the D column, though Nevada isn’t too far behind, based on the model I’ve been developing. Wisconsin is tougher for me to predict, since the incumbent is retiring…there’s not much data to work with.
-
#40 written by GROG 1 year ago
DC,
The Right would get their message of abstinence across without pissing off women.
I love it. Now “The Right” is now against contraception.
This contraception debate was brilliantly manufactured by “The Left” and George Stephanopoulos in his question to Romney during the January 7th debate. The question about contraception seemed to come out of nowhere, but after Obama announced he was forcing religious organazations to provide contraception to it’s employees just a few weeks after George’s question to Romney, it has become apparent the question was very much part of a plan. A plan to somehow create an impression that “The Right” are trying to ban contraception. And amazingly, it seems to be working.
DC, it has been mainly leadership from the Catholic church who oppose Obama’s contraception mandate, and Catholics are traditionally strong supporters of the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party and “The Right”. -
#41 written by curious jane 1 year ago
-
#42 written by GROG 1 year ago
-
GROG,
Catholics are traditionally strong supporters of the Democratic Party
Perhaps in 1960. Not recently, though. In 2004, Catholics voted for Bush over Kerry, 52⁄47. In 2008, they voted for Obama over McCain, 54⁄45. Seems to be a swing group in there.
Now “The Right” is now against contraception.
It seems that evangelicals are opposed to it, anyway. This was particularly overt in the late 1800s and much of the 1900s, when there was an especially powerful evangelical morality movement (which also led to Prohibition). Anthony Comstock was a leader of the anti-contraception movements.
That said, I don’t know how likely it is that the Republican Party would reinstate Comstock laws.
-
@GROG… DC, it has been mainly leadership from the Catholic church who oppose Obama’s contraception mandate, and Catholics are traditionally strong supporters of the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party and “The Right”.
The Corner at NRO is probably the most popular mainstream conservative blog. At the moment (it changes all the time) there are 17 different articles on the front page, and 11 of them deal with some aspect of birth control or the “mandate.” Earlier in the week about 75% of their articles were devoted to this issue.
If Republicans are somehow being tagged with the meme that they are “against birth control”, they are certainly doing nothing to dispel this impression. In fact, in their frantic eagerness to find an issue they could hurt Obama with, they have played up this “freedom of religion” argument around birth control… and hurt themselves badly in the process.
And Stephanolpolous’ question about birth control didn’t “come out of nowhere.” It came out of this statement that Santorum had made in an interview just a couple of months earlier:“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. The whole sexual libertine idea; many in the Christian faith have said, well, that’s OK, contraception is OK. It’s not OK, because it’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.“
And now we’re hearing about all-male panels addressing the contraceptive issue, and aspirin between the knees as effective birth control.
That series of THUDS you keep hearing right now is the women’s vote dropping away from the GOP in every swing state. -
-
#46 written by Mainer 1 year ago
Guys and gals when you have lost my dear little Irish wife you have a problem. Do not ever presume to tell her Irishness what she should do with her body for me her husband of almost 30 years has more brains than that. This whole lets go So Con plan was a bad idea from day one and now we are just seeing blame game crap for the cockup. Santorum lamely trying t say his is not a SoCon candidacy when that is the only reaso the Texas two stepers are supporting him is ust so much lieing bullshit that is going to submarine him if not now then down the road.
-
MW
Re: MT, obviously not a #s guy like you, but MT already has a Dem gov. and 2 Dem senators and MT is challenging Citizens United to the SC. I know MT is still a relatively conservative state, but open minded, unlike the South.
And Obama is now an incumbent and there was talk of how Obama might have had a chance in 2008. “”“If””” the election looks to be a blow out for Obama, he would probably put the extra $$$ needed so his campaign might swing MT like it did IN in 2008.
The key in my proposition
of course is how god awful the current (2) Rep wannabes “appear” to be. Oh heck, appear my ass lol as they are both frickin’ train wrecks! -
#48 written by GROG 1 year ago
Michael,
It seems that evangelicals are opposed to it, anyway.
The interesting thing about that, is that African Americans are overwhelmingly Evangelical and overwhelmingly Democrats. And a majority of mid to low income Americans are Evangelical. And more women than men are Evangelical.
This is according to a Gallup poll that is pretty old, but I can’t imagine things have changed a whole lot since it was taken. I’m sure there are more recent polls out there, but I don’t have much time tonight. -
shiloh,
MT, obviously not a #s guy like you, but MT already has a Dem gov. and 2 Dem senators and MT is challenging Citizens United to the SC. I know MT is still a relatively conservative state, but open minded, unlike the South.
The last time Montana went for a Democrat for President was in 1992. That year, H. Ross Perot took a good chunk of votes in that state. The last time Montana went for a Democrat for President before that? 1964.
Just saying, in the case of Montana, Democrat in the Governor’s Mansion and Democrats being sent to the upper chamber of the Capitol doesn’t seem to mean much in terms of the Presidency.
-
#50 written by Jean 1 year ago
All these not-Romneys still viable contenders in the Republican primary reminds me of the old joke about a company trying and failing to sell its dog food product:
The CEO calls a meeting to find out why their dog food isn’t selling. He says: “I don’t understand it. We’ve got a great factory to produce our dog food efficiently. We’ve got a great Marketing Department to get our brand of dog food into all the stores. And we’ve got a great Advertising Department to advertise our brand of dog food to all the consumers. So WHY isn’t our dog food selling???”
One of his subordinates replies, “Because the dogs don’t like it.”
-
#52 written by mostlyilurk 1 year ago
Isn’t Santorum (who believes that contraception is not okay and who’s spokesperson thinks its appropriate to joke about aspirin being an appropriate and acceptable form of contraception) now leading Republican candidates in national polls. And wasn’t it Republicans in Virginia who were responsible for the law requiring women to submit to vaginal ultrasounds. I’m trying to imagine the circumstances under which women would vote for men who support these kinds of policies and I just can’t.
-
#53 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
Well, ten months ago, on 538 refugees, I looked at Sabato’s solid, lean and toss-up for the election and at that time came up with a 299 — 239 Obama win over Romney.
Max aka Birdpilot says:
April 23, 2011 at 15:31If we give ALL the R-states AND all the Toss-ups that would give 291 EV to the GOP. A win.
I can’t see NV going R, –6 = 285
The way Kasich is pissing ‘em off in OH, scratch it, –18 = 267 EV, already under 271.
I’m not ready to give VA(-13) or CO (-9) back yet, I count then “leans D”, – 22 = 245
IA (-6) was a 9+ point spread in 2008, I can’t see that much of a change vs 2008, = 239.
For now, I’m willing to leave NH as Romney is almost a favorite son.
So throwing out “toss-ups”, as of now, I’m calling it 299–239, Obama.
As of now, I’m giving NH back to Obama and changing the count to 303 — 235.
I also gave the odds quoted by Paddy Power for betting odds.
Max ak
a Birdpilot says:
April 23, 2011 at 15:39BTW,
PaddyPower is giving Obama @ 4/7, Romney @ 17/2, Trump @ 33⁄1.
Currently, Paddy Power is quoting Obama @ 1⁄2 and Romney @ 5⁄2 with Santorum being given @ 24⁄2. A very slight decline for Obama, a bit of a rise foe Romney and Santorum 15 lengths back coming into the far turn.
More later. -
GROG,
The interesting thing about that, is that African Americans are overwhelmingly Evangelical and overwhelmingly Democrats.
It is interesting…the African-American flavor of evangelical Christianity appears to be somewhat different from its Caucasian counterpart. Not sure why that is.
-
-
Max,
I look at Virginia as being an Obama state now, though I wouldn’t have a couple of weeks ago. That Fox News Swing State poll makes Virginia look surprisingly blue. Colorado and Nevada are barely-lean-Obama if the Republican is Romney, or solid-lean-Obama if it’s Santorum (again, based on the Fox poll). Iowa, on the other hand, looks like a barely-lean-Republican, particularly if it’s Santorum.Now with Ohio…Romney is polling very well there. But Santorum isn’t polling so well. So if it’s Romney, I’m putting Ohio in the R column.
Of course, all of this is subject to change as the fickle nature of the voting public shifts.
-
#57 written by Jean 1 year ago
Michael,
I’m not so sure Montana is out of the question. From Chuck Todd and Sheldon Gawiser’s book How Barack Obama Won — a State by State Guide to the Historic 2008 Presidential Election:
2008 results:
McCain — 242,763 — 49.5%
Obama — 231,667 — 47.3 %
Other candidates — 15,679
2006 results:Bush — 59.1%
Kerry — 38.6%Ron Paul got 10,638 votes or 2.2% of the vote, proving the state still has a Libertarian streak, and making McCain’s margin as small as it was.
Turnout was up about 1.5 percentage points to an estimated 65.9% of the voting eligible population. Nearly two in five of the ballots were cast early or via absentee voting.
Early on, the Obama campaign believed it could put Montana into play.
What made Montana so enticing to the Obama campaign team was the fact that it wouldn’t take a big turnout of voters to flip the state. And they were right. Obama lost the state by a mere 11,000 votes. Only the raw vote in Missouri was closer.
-
Jean
The other equation/point I left out re: MT was it’s pop. is only 1 million ie the lesser the pop. “supposedly” the easier for it to swing one way or another.
In any event, suffice it to say, the more states Obama realistically competes in, the more $$$ his opposition has to spend defending “supposed” Rep home turf. Just like 2008.
Again, Obama had (44) campaign offices in IN in 2008. McCain had zero!
>
Speaking of Missouri, they pride themselves in usually picking the presidential winner, the last time they didn’t was Stevenson in ’56 until they went w/McCain barely ?!? in 2008. Soooo, if Obama looks like a sure winner come election day, put the show me state in Obama’s column.
-
#59 written by Jean 1 year ago
Missouri 2008 results from the book How Barack Obama Won, a State-by-State Guide to the Historic 2008 Presidential Election:
2008 results:
McCain — 1,445,814 — 49.4%
Obama — 1,441,911 — 49.3%
Other candidates — 37,480
2004 results:Bush — 53.3%
Kerry — 46.1%
Ideologically, Missouri falls in the middle of the rest of the country but with a slight tilt to the right. So if you believe the country is center-right, then Missouri is your bellwether. But if you believe the country is center-center, then Missouri is a very, very light shade of red. And if there was one piece of data that indicates why the state may have narrowly stuck with McCain over Obama, it’s the fact that just 36% of the electorate were college-educated voters. Missouri falls in the bottom 10 of states in terms of percent of college-educated voters, and McCain carried eight of those ten states, including Missouri.
-
-
Jean,
Obama lost the state by a mere 11,000 votes. Only the raw vote in Missouri was closer.
That’s fine, but Missouri had nearly seven times as many people voting. The raw number is not terribly meaningful, since you need to get the percentage to shift. In other words, there are people in every state who you’re not going to get no matter what. You get the low-hanging fruit first, and work your way up the tree. And the curve rises exponentially. For that reason, it takes very few fruit in Montana to end up having a lot of work per new vote. You can get far more of those fruit in Missouri.
Of course, as I said, it’s the percentage that’s the ultimately important number. Missouri was 0.13 points away from being an Obama state. That’s statistically a tie in every meaningful sense. A simple recount would have been as likely as not to flip the result. Since Obama won either way, a recount was superfluous, but that certainly wouldn’t have been the case if the electoral college were less than ten votes in the balance.
North Carolina, incidentally, was also a statistical tie, though in Obama’s favor. Indiana was within the margin of error, too. And Florida and Montana were right on the margins.
Could those five hang in the balance this time, too? Absolutely. They were close last time, when Obama had the magic pixie dust of promises that didn’t yet have to be delivered. As Paul Simon once said, “I know they’d never match my sweet imagination, and everything looks worse in black and white.”
-
#63 written by GROG 1 year ago
-
#64 written by GROG 1 year ago
Michael,
It seems that evangelicals are opposed to it (contraception), anyway.
According to the National Association of Evangelicals, 90% of Evangelical leaders are OK with birth control.
-
According to the National Association of Evangelicals, 90% of Evangelical leaders are OK with birth control.
If this is actually true, somebody better tell clueless Santorum …
-
Do you deny that?
Yes I do.
Cool. Then you will agree with me that Santorum, Romney, McConnell, Boehner, and the Republican House of Representatives are engaging in naked political bullshit when they claim this is a “religious rights” issue. You will agree with me that the only ones whose religious rights are potentially being violated are the women who might not be able to receive contraceptive services as part of their insurance coverage.
-
#67 written by shortchain 1 year ago
I fail to see the relevance of the statistic that
According to the National Association of Evangelicals, 90% of Evangelical leaders are OK with birth control.
It’s not the leaders who are determining who the GOP nominee for President will be. It’s not the leaders who will vote in the fall.
-
GROG,
After sperm meets egg (conception), a fertilized ovum results. This is hour zero, day zero of human development. Fertilization usually occurs in the distal Fallopian tubes (ovarian tubes), near where the tube meets the ovary, from whence came the egg.
It takes about six days for the fertilized ovum to make the journey to the uterus. As it travels, it divides and forms a structure called a blastocyst (blasto– = dividing, –cyst = fluid-filled cavity).
About day six or seven, the blastocyst implants and starts secreting hormones, particularly progesterone. If it doesn’t do that successfully, then the uterus rejects the embryo and sheds its uterine lining (i.e. menstruates). This is estimated to happen “naturally” in about 1⁄3 to 1⁄2 of pregnancies, although no one knows for sure.
Many contraceptive methods prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum. If you believe human life begins at conception, then all of these methods kill a living human. Similarly, the “natural” process of spontaneous abortion kills about 1⁄2 of the living humans too.
The only types of contraception that would not kill a living human being, in your formulation, would be the barrier methods such as condoms and diaphragms/cervical caps. However, condoms are not readily adopted by males (particularly males who make aspirin jokes), and diaphragms are subject to unacceptably high failure rates.
Chemical contraceptives (i.e. “the pill”) and intrauterine devices work by preventing implantation of the blastocyst and so kill a living human being in your formulation.
So I need you to clarify: do you mean you’re in favor of condoms and diaphragms, or do you mean you’re in favor of all contraception, even those methods that kill a living human being?
-
#69 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
Watching the current polls, FL may well be the next state that I shift. That’s 29 EV this cycle. Rasmussen has Obama with a 3% lead over Romney. IN could beat out FL, with RCP avg at +5.7 and the range of polls from +4 to +8 for the President. Daniels is pissing off as fast as Kasich in OH. But IN still makes me a tad nervous, so for me, still toss-up. And since I don’t allow toss-ups, leaving them in GOP.
In NC, PPP has a dead heat at Obama +1%. Toss-up, leave GOP for now. BUT, Romney is –24 in favorables.
I stand on Ohio. PPP has Obama +7 and the RCP average +1.7. (Rasmussen +4, Quinnipiac +2 and Fox –6) -
#70 written by mclever 1 year ago
@Monotreme
Your description of birth control misses that some (most?) formulations of “the pill” work by preventing ovulation, thus no chance of fertilization because there’s no egg.
http://m.plannedparenthood.org/mt/www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm?un_jtt_v_expand=2#un_q2 -
Mclever,
True, but many pro-life advocates prefer to focus on the second part of the combination pill, that which prevents implantation if the first part doesn’t successfully prevent ovulation. You’re right that I over-simplified.
See, for example,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/plan-b
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhZOBqdlE5M
Since pro-life advocates apparently prefer to focus on what they call the abortifacient properties of progestin (the part of the combination pill that prevents implantation), and since most of the oral contraceptives now marketed are combination pills, a strict “life begins at conception” position (as I understand it) allows only for barrier methods as contraception, as outlined in the first link above.
-
#72 written by GROG 1 year ago
Mono,
I believe, from what understand of science (I am far from a scientist), and from what I believe spiritually, that life begins at fertilization.
From a biological standpoint (correct me if I’m wrong) the following are characteristic of all living things:
1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
A fertilized oocyte has all these charactaristics of life. Therefore, I would have to be opposed to something that terminates that life. -
#73 written by Armchair Warlord 1 year ago
-
#74 written by Armchair Warlord 1 year ago
Incidentally, I’m surprised a young guy like me seems to be the only one to get the aspirin-between-the-knees crack. A woman doing that would obviously be unable to spread her legs, so to speak.
But if we’re going to be bringing back the 1950s, I vote for bringing the three martini lunch and tailfins on cars first.
-
#75 written by GROG 1 year ago
-
#76 written by curious jane 1 year ago
-
#77 written by Armchair Warlord 1 year ago
Considering the sheer amount of biological crapshooting that goes in in early pregnancy I don’t find external interference in the process to be particularly unethical. Something like half of all pregnancies end in some form of early term miscarriage anyways. Complaining about “natural” vs “unnatural” miscarriages is a cop-out on the real issue, which is that women should be allowed to have control over their own bodies and reproductive processes.
-
#78 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
Back to the ’50’s!?!?!?!
Well, does that mean:
Them coloreds must go to the back of the bus?
Literacy tests?
Sunday Blue laws?
Union membership?
Divorce much harder in most states?
The draft?
Separate, but equal schools and other public accommodations?
Defined-benefit plans, instead of 401k’s?
All white University of Alabama football teams? Hell, all the SEC and SWC (gotta bring that back, too!)
Among other things????? -
-
tailfin on cars first
8)
My dad, who was in the auto industry from ’46 to ’75, talked about Harley Earl a couple times. When I was stationed in CA ’81/’82 you’d see an occasional black and white ’57 T-Bird on the road. Just another reason cars nowadays suck lol. No je ne sais quoi/joie de vivre.
carry on
-
GROG,
As a biologist, I’ll grant you a fertilized ovum -> morula -> blastocyst is alive. The question is, is it human?
Which still begs the question of what contraceptive methods you’re referring to when you say you’re in favor of contraception. I don’t think you’re in favor of abortion, and that’s a contraceptive method.
-
#82 written by GROG 1 year ago
-
#83 written by Armchair Warlord 1 year ago
-
#85 written by GROG 1 year ago
-
#87 written by Mainer 1 year ago
I find a local priests take on this to be telling. “I wish the higher ups in the church would forget about abortion and birth control long enough for people like me to get the last group of people back in the pews they pissed off before they piss of a bunch more.” You would all like my priest friend though he does tend to drink a might much, has been known to swear and is a lousy fisherman all items I have seen in one day on the water.
But hey Rick Santorum says his campaign isn’t about social issues.….…. -
Interesting until now the scenario was grass roots conservatives hoping Gingrich/Santo/Paul would stay in long enough to keep mittens from the nomination ie a brokered convention.
Whereas now, the Rep hierarchy/establishment is hoping mittens stays in long enough
to keep Santo from getting the nomination lol.Oh what a tangled web we weave …
-
#89 written by Armchair Warlord 1 year ago
-
#90 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
fili,
If I may go back to comments early on, #2,#3: You mentioned the GOP conservative 3-legged stool in relation to Santorum.
Who does sit on that stool? I can’t think of any viable national name with the possible exception of Jim DeMint. And, IMHO, the closer you triangulate to that sweet spot of right wing politics, the less and less viable as a potential nominee who CAN win the presidential election you get.
I would really like to hear from some who call themselves conservatives on the matter as well. -
@Max… Who does sit on that stool? I can’t think of any viable national name with the possible exception of Jim DeMint.
Freepers would tell you there’s two words:
Sarah. Palin.
But you know what? They only yearn for Sarah in the abstract, because she’s the shiny toy they can’t have. When she’s actually on the scene, she turns out to be as divisive and disappointing as any of their other candidates.
As you’ve pointed out, the dream candidate for conservatives would be completely unelectable in a general contest. But I would go even further and say this disconnect really shows how totally, lethally fractured the GOP is right now. Because not only would their “perfect candidate” not be acceptable to the general public, he/she wouldn’t even be acceptable to the GOP itself. The three different legs of the stool have each become so rabidly absolutist that nobody could ever be extreme enough for them. They would all variously be clamoring for somebody who is MORE hawkish and anti-immigrant, MORE extremist on social issues, MORE anti-government.
And that person (as you point out) would be an absolute electoral monster.
Maybe Allan Keyes is their man?
-
#92 written by Max aka Birdpilot 1 year ago
fili,
But for even the closest that the conservatives can come to the ideal, will the independents, the 20% in the middle, view them as too extreme and set up the stinging redux of 1964?
Does anybody out there see that there’s ANY way such a candidate would win 50% +1 of the electorate? Sure, if the economy was to again drop off the cliff between now and November, but under “normal” circumstance?
Even looking state by state, I’ll immediately add FL and IN back on the D side should even Santorum win the nomination, much less the person closest to “ideal” candidate. And with the changing demographics in NC, the growth in the Triangle, it may well be not far behind. That would then be ALL the states that Obama won in 2008 and an EC of 358.
If this were 2016 or 2020, I’d begin to include AZ and TX into the calculus.
And these numbers are why I agree with you on the downfall of the current GOP. -
Max … I think smart Republicans are no longer even looking for the “perfect candidate.” I believe they have, in their heart of hearts, already conceded the election. They know they can’t win, and their attention has now shifted to the real battle, which is the war within the GOP.
The big question is not who will win the presidency, it’s which conservative faction will come out on top after November. Will the party ultimately be dominated by the small– gov. fiscons, or the isolationist religious socons… or will the neocons slither back into prominence with this renewed threat from Iran?
My personal prediction (which is often wrong ) is that the party, in fury at Obama’s re-election will indulge in a futile orgy of hate-filled social conservatism and immigrant/minority/Obama bashing ‚ and spend a few years in the wilderness as a rump southern party. Then (I hope) it will pull itself together, leave the religious and racist crap behind, develop some sound fiscal policies and real ideas on the economy, and re-emerge as more sober, grown-up, broadly appealing voice on the right. -
#94 written by shortchain 1 year ago
fili,
What is a political party? Is it the leadership? Because in that case it’s already evident that the “party” and the people who would vote for candidates proposed by that leadership are at serious odds. Or is it the people who register as members of the party? In that case, it’s a leaderless mob, susceptible to being co-opted by any mountebank or charlatan that comes along (think Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum) who shares, in all honesty, little or nothing of the real desires of their supposedly supporting electorate, but who only panders to them in order to be elected, then turns on them in service to their true masters, the wealthy élite who financed their campaign.
In either case, if they don’t collect their marbles in time for the game until 2020, the leadership, which has already largely reached, if not surpassed, its sell-by date, will be composed of new people who are not found on the national stage at present. And the elderly folks who make up the registered voters will also be moving along to that great voting place in the sky.
So we can expect huge swings and a lot of angst on the right as they sort this out. My bet is on the moneyed folks. They’ve got the time horizon and the brains. The social conservatives will be barraged, over the next few years, with new scientific advances which will upset their limited worldviews to the point where they are likely to be confused to the point of fugue. The religious right is old and getting older at just about sidereal time.
-
Nate made an interesting observation a while back about the party out of power in the White House. Typically, the first term out they pick someone extreme and ideologically most like the party’s base. Then, as they lose more and more elections, they revert to the mean. The amount of time, then, is based on how quickly they revert to the mean.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
About Monotreme (240 posts)
Monotreme is an unabashed liberal and dog lover who lives in an almost-square state in the Western U.S. He keeps a second blog related to his work as a scientist and author at 7synapses.com.











The Third Bush (also the Middle Bush) puts me in mind of this classic government training film, “How Not to Be Seen”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zekiZYSVdeQ